United States v. Granger Howell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the “uncontradicted facts” showed the defendant did not have a pos-sessory interest in the $140,000 the government gave a cooperating source to purchase cocaine from the defendant
• concluding that the defendant, who had sold large quantities of cocaine and sought the return of firearms and government funds that a confidential informant had shown him, “c[a]me into court with extremely unclean hands” and therefore was not entitled to relief (quotation marks omitted)
• noting that the defendant who had pled guilty to 5 USCA11 Case: 20-10563 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 6 of 11 one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine had “extremely ‘unclean hands’” and that he was thus hardly entitled to equitable relief
• “[I]n order for a district court to grant a Rule 41(g) motion, the owner of the property must have clean hands.”
• “[I]n order for a district court to grant a Rule 41(g) motion, the owner of the property must have clean hands.”
• “In order for an owner of property to invoke Rule 41(g), he must show that he had a possessory interest in the property seized by the government.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).